No article that spawned this Howard? Well in my opinion, college athletes getting a cut of the money no longer would make them college athletes, but professionals, and would further interfere with their academics.

They always have the option to go pro if they want to. But we already have the NBA

But do football players get compensation, do volleyball players or lacrosse players. Put the money into scholarships or maybe invest in a team catering service. I understand that it seems unfair but it begins to change the focus of why they are there. They are in College to learn first, play second.

Start throwing money around and focus on the sport instead of the scholastic you end up with an environment that can lead to corruption. Look what happened at Penn State with it's legendary coaches. They took advantage of the power they had and it led to oversights and scandals and such.

This wasn't aimed at one specific sport. The poll referenced sports in general. Therefore, it would be assumed that all athletes would be compensated if a program was put in place. As far as corruption, it is already there. In fact, corruption is part of what has spurred this debate. What happened at Penn State has nothing to do with player compensation. I don't understand how pedophilia and sexual abuse is tied to this conversation? As Howard stated, the NCAA makes billions off of its athletes. The question is, are athletes entitled to some of that money?

Howard - No college student at any major university lives on noodles and peanut butter anymore. Any D-1 school, and I went to one, never has it's students (and especially it's student athletes) going hungry. There's tons of food, and good food, everywhere. Times have changed.

What would March Madness be without the players. Each school that makes it to the Final Four will earn about $9.5 million, and more goes directly to the NCAA.

The players get nothing. If a player takes his championship hat and trades it for a pizza, he could lose his eligibility to play the next season. Up until recently -- and it's still not a settled issue -- EA Sports could use a player's likeness in a game, earn tens of millions on it, and the player gets nothing.

There's a huge inequity between the commercial nature of major college sports and the spurious amateurism of the players.

I definitely agree, but I was just pointing out the misconception about modern college. Most universities include meal plans, and mandatory large ones for Freshmen, in their tuition and fees. It's probably for the best that they do it that way, so students don't have to panic about how they're going to eat before that literature final. :)

I am going to challenge the assertion that there are ANY Division I athletes in the money making programs that are eating noodles and peanut butter. A program of that caliber does not invest in the physical well being of their product and then lets them "get by" on Raman and PB&J. There are however top notch science and engineering students whose hard work brings in millions and possibly billions in research grants that are scraping by. The United States has slipped from it's global preeminence in education, technology, and production and yet we still put on the best Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, and NBA Finals. We are the envy of the world when it comes to producing "athletainment".
A student goes to college to hone a skill that will payoff in career dividends after they graduate. Athletes should be no different. The university is the one who put them in the position to showcase those skills that will open doors for their post college earning leverage, just like a science, engineering, or arts majors. Put those billions back into the system through non-athletic scholarships and grants that will produce leaders of technology, science, innovation, and the arts. Then maybe we can regain our position as world leader in something other than overpaying people to entertain us.

Jeff - For once, we agree, but many of those schools already do that. Ohio State makes a multi-million dollar contribution back to the University every year. If Ohio State didn't have a football program, I'm not sure how high of a caliber the rest of the university would be, and I didn't go there either.

The average scholarship shortfall -- the student's out-of-pocket expenses -- for each "full scholarship" athlete was approximately $3,222 per player during the 2010-11 school year. The report also found that the room-and-board provisions in a full scholarship leave 85% of players living on campus and 86% of players living off campus living below the federal poverty line.

While the amount of money that college athletics is outrageous, I do not believe that paying college athletes is the answer. The revenue that is created from the football and basketball programs funds dozens of other men's and woman's sports that operate at a loss.

There are 100+ players on a D-1 football team that travel across country multiple times a season for games. The college is responsible for the travel, food, clothing, equipment for every single one of them. Now take the soccer team; 14 players, 8 road trips plus a conference championship. Add volleyball, gymnastics, golf, swimming, water polo and on and on.

For every Tim Tebow and Reggie Bush that make a university million dollars of revenue there are 1000 student athletes that do not create extra revenue. There are also another sub group of college athletes that become ineligible for competition either through injury or academics or get arrested. The university then has to eat the scholarship as a loss and find a replacement.

Student athletes also receive free medical care, massage therapy, strength training and chiropractic care not available to the rest of the student body.

Along with all of these extras there are gift bags from college tournaments that include watches, championship rings, hats and shirts. Not to mention the memorabilia that they get to keep and can sell after their eligibility has expired.

Most people who go to college and don't play sports have to complete an un-paid internship to eventually find a job and these people have tens of thousands of tuition debt. D-1 student athletes graduate (mostly) debt free with a substantial amount of free marketing and professional level training that has the potential to earn millions of dollars. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Daniel, I thought we might agree on this one. I would like to see more of that NCAA profit go back into academics. The universities are putting their names, reputations, and liabilities out there to give the NCAA a platform for making that money in the first place.

In addition to their scholarships, the players, I believe should receive a small salary or allowance, and they should either get a cut of any licensing of their individual likeness for any purpose, and/or negotiate their own deals.

If the next Michael Jordan can get a commercial deal with Nike in his sophomore season, more power to him. He shouldn't have to wait and risk injury.

If EA Sports want to use the likeness of Johnny Manziel, he should get paid, not the NCAA.

Why should all of that money go to the NCAA or the respective colleges no matter what the justification for supporting academics or other sports especially when players are denied the opportunity to directly profit off their own accomplishments?

BTW: The argument that the accomplishments of these athletes with hard-earned superior capabilities should be used to support academics or lesser sports reminds me of this famous quote: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

That's Karl Marx. That's redistribution of wealth.

Denying a person to the fruits of his or her own labor (Edmund Burke) is communism.

I agree the 0.1% of college athletes who make money should get a stipend that they could receive after/if they graduate (even if it's during or after their professional career).

With the current system Michael Jordan would not have had a sophomore season. I believe it's wrong that they make a player wait 1 year in basketball or 3 in football to go to the NBA or NFL. Just saying

Marxist or not it keeps other sports sustainable, otherwise they would not exist.

Kyle, I agree with you. Instead of investing in the players who already have full scholarships, invest in a more extensive scholarship program. Everyone complains about university and college tuitions being too expensive. So, why not make the NCAA open up scholarships for mid to low level income families to benefit from? Investing in the players opens avenues to corruption and it is bad enough at the professional levels.

Well Howard, these athletes have earned a free education from their NCAA career. If, they perform at a higher level than the others, then they are awarded a professional career which has the potential to earn them millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not agree with the NCAA or respective schools in banking or profiting from these sports. They should be forced to take those funds and invest in scholarships for those whom cannot afford to do so. If, a student drops out or put no effort in passing then, they should pay back the school for the scholarship.

So, I vote no for NCAA athletes receiving monetary compensation and yes to scholarships for mid to low income families with deserving children who have the ability and desire to further their education.